Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-141498-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240411153232.169560-1-zi.yan@sent.com> <ffbbade3-2de5-4bbe-a6e4-49d2ff7a2f0e@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <ffbbade3-2de5-4bbe-a6e4-49d2ff7a2f0e@redhat.com>
From: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:01:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkr99knWKZvE4WCWKKr=eezkg89idpE59oo_oBneAQynAA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/rmap: do not add fully unmapped large folio to
 deferred split list
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>, 
	Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 8:46=E2=80=AFAM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com=
> wrote:
>
> On 11.04.24 17:32, Zi Yan wrote:
> > From: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
> >
> > In __folio_remove_rmap(), a large folio is added to deferred split list
> > if any page in a folio loses its final mapping. It is possible that
> > the folio is unmapped fully, but it is unnecessary to add the folio
> > to deferred split list at all. Fix it by checking folio mapcount before
> > adding a folio to deferred split list.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >   mm/rmap.c | 9 ++++++---
> >   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> > index 2608c40dffad..d599a772e282 100644
> > --- a/mm/rmap.c
> > +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> > @@ -1494,7 +1494,7 @@ static __always_inline void __folio_remove_rmap(s=
truct folio *folio,
> >               enum rmap_level level)
> >   {
> >       atomic_t *mapped =3D &folio->_nr_pages_mapped;
> > -     int last, nr =3D 0, nr_pmdmapped =3D 0;
> > +     int last, nr =3D 0, nr_pmdmapped =3D 0, mapcount =3D 0;
> >       enum node_stat_item idx;
> >
> >       __folio_rmap_sanity_checks(folio, page, nr_pages, level);
> > @@ -1506,7 +1506,8 @@ static __always_inline void __folio_remove_rmap(s=
truct folio *folio,
> >                       break;
> >               }
> >
> > -             atomic_sub(nr_pages, &folio->_large_mapcount);
> > +             mapcount =3D atomic_sub_return(nr_pages,
> > +                                          &folio->_large_mapcount) + 1=
;
>
> That becomes a new memory barrier on some archs. Rather just re-read it
> below. Re-reading should be fine here.
>
> >               do {
> >                       last =3D atomic_add_negative(-1, &page->_mapcount=
);
> >                       if (last) {
> > @@ -1554,7 +1555,9 @@ static __always_inline void __folio_remove_rmap(s=
truct folio *folio,
> >                * is still mapped.
> >                */
> >               if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_anon(folio))
> > -                     if (level =3D=3D RMAP_LEVEL_PTE || nr < nr_pmdmap=
ped)
> > +                     if ((level =3D=3D RMAP_LEVEL_PTE &&
> > +                          mapcount !=3D 0) ||
> > +                         (level =3D=3D RMAP_LEVEL_PMD && nr < nr_pmdma=
pped))
> >                               deferred_split_folio(folio);
> >       }
>
> But I do wonder if we really care? Usually the folio will simply get
> freed afterwards, where we simply remove it from the list.
>
> If it's pinned, we won't be able to free or reclaim, but it's rather a
> corner case ...
>
> Is it really worth the added code? Not convinced.

It is actually not only an optimization, but also fixed the broken
thp_deferred_split_page counter in /proc/vmstat.

The counter actually counted the partially unmapped huge pages (so
they are on deferred split queue), but it counts the fully unmapped
mTHP as well now. For example, when a 64K THP is fully unmapped, the
thp_deferred_split_page is not supposed to get inc'ed, but it does
now.

The counter is also useful for performance analysis, for example,
whether a workload did a lot of partial unmap or not. So fixing the
counter seems worthy. Zi Yan should have mentioned this in the commit
log.

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>